Identifying and Advocating Best Practices in the Criminal Justice System. A Texas-Centric Examination of Current Conditions, Reform Initiatives, and Emerging Issues with a Special Emphasis on Capital Punishment.

The tale of returned mail and a missed deadline might seem comical if it did not involve a man trying to stave off execution. Supreme Court justices had harsh words Tuesday for lawyers who abandon their clients and a state legal system that does not seem overly concerned.

At the end of a lively hour of arguments, it appeared the court would order a new hearing for Alabama death row inmate Cory Maples, who had lost the chance to appeal his death sentence because of a mailroom mix-up at the New York law firm Sullivan and Cromwell and the diffidence of a local court clerk.

Two Sullivan and Cromwell lawyers had been pressing Maples' claim that his earlier legal representation was so bad that it violated the Constitution — until they both left the firm without telling him or the Alabama courts.

Deadlines usually matter a lot at the Supreme Court, where a few years back a defendant who was late to file an appeal because the judge gave his lawyer the wrong date still lost his case. Another principle the court often holds dear is that it's tough luck for defendants whose lawyers make mistakes.

But Tuesday's case, perhaps because it involves the death penalty, was the rare instance when the court seemed prepared to grant some leeway on both counts.

Justice Samuel Alito is a former federal prosecutor who often votes for the government in criminal cases. But he said he did not understand why Alabama fought so hard to deny Maples the right to appeal when the deadline passed "though no fault of his own, through a series of very unusual and unfortunate circumstances."

Cory R. Maples is facing execution because his lawyers got lost in the mail. At oral argument in his case this morning, Justice Antonin Scalia found himself all alone in thinking that was OK. Yet it is Scalia who notes, toward the end of the hourlong session, that there are never any consequences when defense lawyers screw up a capital case. “Does anything happen to the counsel who have been inadequate in a capital case?” Scalia asks Alabama Solicitor General John Neiman. “Other than getting another capital case?”

Hard to imagine a more damning indictment of the American capital justice system than that.

And:

Alabama is the only state that doesn't grant taxpayer-funded legal assistance to death-row inmates seeking to challenge what happened at trial. So for his appeal, Maples had local counsel acting in name only, while he was represented for free by a pair of second-year associates at the fabulous New York law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell. For 18 months nothing happened with his appeal, during which period his young lawyers left their firm without notifying Maples or the court. They did tell the mailroom. So when the Alabama court sent a ruling to his two lawyers indicating that his appeal had been denied, the mailroom stamped it “Return to Sender” and sent it back to Alabama. The county clerk stuck it in a file and Maples—who knew nothing of any of this—missed the 42-day deadline for filing another appeal. Maples’ local counsel, John Butler Jr., also received a copy of the ruling, but because he believed he was Maples’ lawyer in name only, he did nothing with it.

So Maples thought he had three lawyers when in fact he had none. He missed his filing deadline.

Reviewing courts all rejected Maples’ request for an extension in the filing deadline. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that “any and all fault here lies with Maples for not filing a timely notice of appeal.” The Supreme Court itself has not had a lot of patience for missed deadlines of late.

But the question before the court today is whether Maples’ missed filing deadline can be excused if he himself was blameless, and the government’s actions were a contributing factor. The majority of the court is flummoxed at Alabama’s decision to deny a man the right to appeal when he missed a deadline—quoting Justice Samuel Alito—"through no fault of his own, through a series of very unusual and unfortunate circumstances.”

George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, Gregory G. Garre, represents Maples, and immediately Scalia attacks him for claiming that local counsel wasn’t the attorney of record in this case: “You want us to believe the local attorney had no responsibility for the case at all? … Even if local counsel was just a functionary, surely his functions would include forwarding a notice?”

Alabama Solicitor General John Neiman told the justices Tuesday that nothing in federal law requires waiving the appeals deadline. He stressed in his written brief that Maples is "unquestionably guilty of murdering two people."

Garre agreed that the question at the heart of Maples' challenge was "not who shot the victim" but rather, "whether Mr. Maples was going to be convicted for capital murder or murder that would result in life imprisonment."

Neiman contended that it was sufficient that a court clerk's notices reached the local lawyer, and Neiman described that lawyer's role as "more meaningful" than Garre had presented.

When Chief Justice John Roberts pressed him on that, Neiman had no answer and said, in a tense moment in the courtroom, that he would withdraw the assertion.

Plainly frustrated with the state's overall position, Roberts wondered why an official wouldn't have known "there was a problem" after nothing was heard back from Maples' attorneys.

Justice Anthony Kennedy added, "It's pretty clear that they didn't get the mail … because it's sent back."

Only Justice Antonin Scalia seemed ready to side with Alabama. He suggested letters to the local counsel were enough and that that attorney "simply goofed in not advising" lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell about the deadline.

By the time the mix-up was discovered, apparently thanks to inquiries by the inmate's mother, Maples' window for appeals had run out.

The local judge was not sympathetic, saying the county clerk was not required to follow up or investigate why the key documents were sent back without acknowledgment.

"How can a circuit court clerk in Decatur, Alabama, know what is going on in a law firm in New York, N.Y.?" Morgan County Circuit Judge Glenn Thompson asked in his ruling.

Subsequent state and federal courts also refused to grant Maples another chance to file his appeals, saying the 42-day deadline was standard and non-negotiable.

During arguments Tuesday, the questions came down to who shouldered most of the blame: the county clerk or Maples' lawyers? Justice Antonin Scalia was particularly animated, speaking 50 times in the 60-minute argument, and favoring the state's position. He said it was the obligation of the local attorney to ensure his out-of-state colleagues had all the paperwork.

"He failed to check with the New York lawyers who were working with him," Scalia said. "Why is the state responsible for that?"

But a majority of his colleagues questioned the Alabama solicitor general's position.

Does the U.S. Supreme Court value life, albeit a deeply flawed one, as much as it does a piece of property?

That, in a manner of speaking, is at the crux of a case involving a Death Row inmate from Alabama that the high court will hear today.

And:

State lawyers are perfectly fine with Maples not receiving federal review of his claims, which is perfectly wrong.

Without doubt, the death penalty appeals process is long and arduous for everyone involved, especially victims' families. But the point to the process is to make sure the state gets it right -- not only ensuring that a person convicted of capital murder is actually guilty, was adequately represented and received a fair trial, but also that he was properly sentenced to death.

In Maples' case, the main question is whether his court-appointed attorneys were competent. Barre argues Maples' trial and sentencing were "tainted by gross ineffectiveness" of his lawyers, who admitted they were "stumbling around in the dark" because of their lack of experience with capital cases. They failed to investigate Maples' abusive childhood, his mental health and history of depression and suicide attempts, and alcohol and substance abuse, which could have affected the jury's decision on recommending death instead of life without parole. (The vote was 10-2, the minimum number needed, in favor of death.)

The state would have Maples do without federal review of his trial lawyers' competence because, through no fault of his own, he missed a filing deadline.

The bipartisan Constitution Project and the libertarian Cato Institute, neither of which have positions for or against the death penalty, filed a brief siding with Maples.

"This case measures our courts' basic commitment to correct what a reasonable observer would readily perceive as a miscarriage of justice," their brief said.

That sounds right to us. We'll see soon enough how many reasonable observers sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.

The StandDown Texas Project

The StandDown Texas Project was organized in 2000 to advocate a moratorium on executions and a state-sponsored review of Texas' application of the death penalty.
To stand down is to go off duty temporarily, especially to review safety procedures.

Steve Hall

Project Director Steve Hall was chief of staff to the Attorney General of Texas from 1983-1991; he was an administrator of the Texas Resource Center from 1993-1995. He has worked for the U.S. Congress and several Texas legislators. Hall is a former journalist.